British Chocolate Manufacturers Essay Example for Free

British Chocolate Manufacturers Essay After reading The History of Chocolate by Diner’s Digest it is easy to understand that the main idea of the story is about the history of chocolate. For example, how it all started and how it changed over the years. The history of chocolate a beverage and ended in a bar. To begin with the history of chocolate all started with the Olmecs, an ancient civilization, in southern Mexico which thrived from 1500 B.C. to 400 B.C. Then it got passed along to the Mayan civilization. The Mayans used chocolate mainly as a drink. They usually flavored it with herbs, spices, or even chili. Then they shaked it back and forth to make it foamy. Next came the Aztecs, they thought the beverage was beneficial to warriors in battle. Another way cocoa was used was in currency. There was an official Aztec document saying a list of price equivalents. Next, a descendant of Mayans, the Kekchi Mayans presented crates of chocolate to Prince Philip. It was all frothed and ready to drunk by the Europeans. When Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus classified the â€Å"cocoa bean† he gave it the scientific name of Theobroma which meant â€Å"food of the gods’† in Greek. Another manufacturer, Coenrad Van Houten, produced a way for making chocolate powder. He did it using hydraulic pressure to remove the natural fat from it. Then that produced a hard cake which was crushed into powder. This was then mixed with water to make a chocolate drink. Next came the Joseph Fry Son, British chocolate manufacturers, which was founded by a Quaker. The Quaker was a doctor before finding that company. In 1847 they discovered a way of converting melted cocoa butter to â€Å"Dutched† cocoa butter (which was sweetened). This would create a paste that would be pressed into molds. This created a bar that turned to be a big hit. Last Daniel Peter (Swiss Chocolate Manufacturer) unsuccessfully repeatedly tried to make a milk flavored chocolate. But in 1867 Henri Nestle created the first milk chocolate bar. The milk’s low water content, that he made, made it possible to not spoil in storage. Another company named Celia’s Confections produced chocolate covered cherries. But the military put 3-4 chocolate bars in soldier’s â€Å"D-ration†. It was meant to sustain the soldier. The chocolate bar came to be associated with peace. Today chocolate is a major industry in the world. Americans consume 3.1 billion pounds of chocolate. That’s 11.7 pounds per person! To sum it up the Olmecs found chocolate. Throughout the years it got changed and passed along to many civilizations. This is the the history of chocolate.

Embittered Woman in Great Expectations, A Rose for Emily, and Sunset B

The Embittered Older Woman in Great Expectations, A Rose for Emily, and Sunset Boulevard      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The character of the delusional, embittered older woman is prevalent in literature and movies. Since Dickens created the memorable Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, she has evolved with the times into many other well-known characters, including Miss Emily in Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" and Norma Desmond in the film Sunset Boulevard. In each of these incarnations, the woman seeks revenge after a man's betrayal prevents her from meeting society's expectations of women, but finds no peace in her bitterness and ends up becoming a shriveled shell of the person she once was. By examining how the Miss Havisham archetype has been reinterpreted, one can see how society's expectations of women have changed and how these changes affect the character.    In Victorian times, a woman's identity and place in society were determined by who she married. The woman was the "angel in the house," bringing moral purity to the household, and often had free time to pursue lighthearted activities such as crocheting and entertaining guests. She was also responsible for raising the children and teaching them to be virtuous, as she was. Without marriage, however, a woman had few opportunities, and became a governess, an old maid, or a prostitute, none of which carried much if any social standing. Thus, a woman's greatest fear was to end up without a husband, especially as a result of some event that brought embarrassment or a stain on her character.    Miss Havisham has a Victorian woman's version of great expectations; she is about to become the epitome of the "angel in the house," a wealthy wife of high societal status, when her dreams... ... like Estella, who are able to survive those prejudices, even a lifetime of negative experiences, and emerge with strength and hope. Though we pity Miss Havisham, Miss Emily, and Norma Desmond, they chose to lock themselves away from the world rather than trying to overcome their situations. Perhaps they could have done something more to help themselves, but it seems that they did not try. Perhaps what makes the difference between an Estella and a Miss Havisham is a rose, one person like Pip who cares enough to reach out and take her hand, and show her that there is hope.    Works Cited    Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. New York, Penguin Books, 1996.    Faulkner, William. "A Rose for Emily." The Story and Its Writer. Boston, Bedford/St. Martin's, 1996.    Great Expectations. Fox, 1998.    Sunset Boulevard. Paramount, 1949.

Aldi †Crisps, Snacks & Nuts Essay

Exercise You have been asked by the Buying Director to visit a local Aldi store and critique the Crisps, Snacks & Nuts fixture. Your critique should take the form of a report or presentation in any format. However, we will not be providing laptops on the day so if you choose to produce a PowerPoint presentation we advise you print out your slides prior to the day. You may want to look at using a SWOT or PEST analysis. A SWOT analysis requires you to consider strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A PEST looks at external issues such as political, economical, social and technological factors. We have detailed a number of pointers that may be of help to you. You should consider short term and long term recommendations leading on from your analysis, taking into consideration any wider implications. The critique should cover areas such as: Quality Range Service Availability Packaging On the day of your Interview, you will have an opportunity to present your department critique to the Buying Director. In this exercise you will be assessed on: Your critical evaluation of the department and the reasoning behind any recommendations made The ideas you present Your consideration of the long term and wider implications

First Amendment Rights and Access to Opinions - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 2905 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/04/26 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: First Amendment Essay Did you like this example? In 1972, five burglars were arrested following the break-in of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington D.C. Uncovered, was a plan concocted by members of the official organization of President Nixons campaign to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones. Taped recordings of President Nixons conversations revealed the President had clearly obstructed justice by directing members of the CIA to halt the FBI investigation into the DNC break-in. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "First Amendment Rights and Access to Opinions" essay for you Create order Facing certain impeachment and conviction, President Nixon resigned the Presidency and subsequently pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. The Watergate scandal created a growing concern in the American public and Congress about the ability of the government to spy on its own citizens. During the course of the Senate Watergate Committee investigation, past executive branch direction of national intelligence agencies to carry out constitutionally questionable domestic security operations came to light. Additionally, a New York Times article published by Seymour Hersh claimed that the CIA had been spying on anti-war activists for more than a decade, violating the agencies charter. In response to these revelations, Congress launched the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House to conduct an investigation into the nations secret agencies and programs. The Church Committee investigated and identified a wide range of intelligence abuses by federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and National Security Agency. In the course of their work, investigators identified programs that had never before been known to the American public, including NSAs Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET, programs which monitored wire communications to and from the United States and shared some of that data with other intelligence agencies. Committee staff researched the FBIs long-running program of covert action designed to disrupt and discredit the activities of groups and individuals deemed a threat to the social order, known as COINTELPRO. The FBI included among the programs many targets organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as local, state, and federal elected officials. Investigators determined that, beginning with P resident Franklin Roosevelts administration and continuing through the early 1970s, intelligence excesses, at home and abroad, were not the product of any single party, administration, or man, but had developed as America rose to a become a superpower during a global Cold War. The committee observed that there is no inherent constitutional authority for the President or any intelligence agency to violate the law, and recommended strengthening oversight of intelligence activities. The Church Committees investigative work led to reform efforts throughout the intelligence community. Congress approved legislation to provide for greater checks and balances of the intelligence community. In 1976 the Senate approvedSenate Resolution 400, establishing theSenate Select Committee on Intelligence, to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. I n 1978 Congress approved and President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), requiring the executive branch to request warrants for wiretapping and surveillance purposes from a newly formed FISA Court. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorizes electronic and physical surveillance of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information. FISA was originally enacted to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence information within the United States. The USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and allowed federal officials greater authority in tracking and intercepting communications, both for purposes of law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering. Until 2001, FISA permitted electronic and physical surveillance of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers if foreign intelligence collection was the primary purpose of the activity. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to allow searches if foreign intelligence collection was a significant purpose. In 2005 the New York Times published an article revealing the Bush administrations warrantless domestic wiretapping surveillance program dating back to 2002. President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying . . . . Under a presidential order . . . the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants . . . . The agency . . . still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications. The President relied on his Article II authority to claim a basis for not following the FISA warrant requirements but following the Supreme Court Decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the argument became shaky. In response to this, the Bush Administration introduced the Protect America Act of 2007 to amend the FISA. The act was passed in August 2007 with a 6-month sunset provision and a number of significant changes to the original law including warrant requirements for foreign communications. Shortly after the expiration of the Protect America Act, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 which was similar to but not the same as the Protect America Act of 2007. In 2013, NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked an estimated 1.7 million classified intelligence files which revealed bulk data collection programs by the government. In response to the leaks, the government introduced the USA Freedom Act which restored in modified form several provisions of the Patriot Act and also imposed restrictions on bulk data collection under section 215 of the Patriot Act. Additionally, act mandates that theFISA courtrelease novel interpretations of the law, which thereby setsprecedentand thereby makes up the body of FISA courtcommon law, as both legal authority for deciding subsequent cases, and for guidance parameters for allowing or restricting surveillance conduct. However, the Act is not clear as to whether or not it mandates retroactive disclosure of decisions prior to passage of the Act in 2015. In January of 2018, President Trumped signed the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. The act extended FISA section 702 authorities until 2023 with some significant changes. The act includes a number of reporting requirements, the publication of minimization procedures that apply to the handling of U.S. person information collected under Section 702, and it addresses issues concerning upstream about collection†information gathered from Internet communications infrastructure based on the mention of a certain selector, such as an email address, within the communication itself (as distinguished from communications collected because they are to or from a selector). Finally, in the most recent development with respect to the FISA court is the widely discussed FISA warrant targeting former foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trumps presidential campaign, Carter Page. In February 2018, House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes released a memo claiming that the FBI m isled the FISA Court about Christopher Steele, the former British secret agent who compiled the dossier on Trump-Russia ties and who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Page. The main complaint in the Nunes memo was that the FISA applications did not disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steeles efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials. In response to the Nunes memo, the Democrats on the committee released their own memo. That memo quoted from parts of the FISA applications, including a footnote in which the FBI explained that Steele was hired to conduct research regarding Candidate #1, Donald Trump, and Trumps ties to Russia, and that the man who hired him was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trumps] campaign. On July 21, 2018 the FBI released a heavily redacted copy of the 412 page FISA application seeking a warrant against Carter Page. Regardless of whether the allegations of impropriety by the FBI are determined to be true, these documents raise serious concerns about the level of oversight the FISA courts work under. Structure of the Act and Court The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis. Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. Most of the Courts work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information. The USA Freedom Act requires designation of at least five people who may serve asamicus curiae: individuals are appointed to inform the court about specific legal or technical issues in certain cases.In cases involving a novel or significant interpretation of the law, one of the designated amicus curiae shall be appointed to assist the court unless the court gives a reason that it would not be appropriate. In other cases, the court may appoint an individual or organization to serve as amicus curiae or file an amicus brief. Since the passage of USA Freedom Act,amicushave counseled the Court on questions such as the governments ability toretain call metadataafter the effective date of the Act and the governments authority touse pen registerswhen communications content may be collected. The FISC operations are classified by default due to the sensitive nature of the issues addressed, but the court has become increasingly visible to the public as the Director of National Intelligence has begun publicly releasing FISC opinions and Congress has issued transparency mandates in the USA FREEDOM Act. However, records from FISC hearings are still not typically made available, even to petitioners challenging surveillance orders under the court rules. FISC historically had discretion to publish its opinions, and in some cases it did so. However, Congress imposed new transparency requirements in the USA Freedom Act, seeking to make the court more publicly accountable. The Director of National Intelligence now must review each FISC order or opinion to determine whether it includes a significant construction or interpretation of any provision of law. Any orders that do must be made public to greatest extent practicable, although when necessary to protect national security it may be permissible for the ODNI to release a summary of the decision. Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) in 1978 to hear appeals from applications denied by FISC. This court is made up of three judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, from U.S. district or appellate courts and serving for seven years. The FISCR has jurisdiction to review the denial of any application under FISA by the FISC. The FISCRs review of the FISCs denial of an application for surveillance is limited. After a motion of the United States to transmit the FISCs record, the FISCR may either affirm or reverse the FISC judges decision. If the FISCR determines that the application was properly denied, it must provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision. Under the USA Freedom Act, the FISC is required to certify for review by the FISCR questions of law in the orders it has issued that affect the need for uniformity or where consideration would serve the interests of justice. In response, the FISCR may give binding instructions to the FISC or require the FISC send the complete record to the FISCR for it to decide the entire matter itself. Finally, the FISCR can also review the FISCs decisions on third party challenges to orders under FISA (e.g. an order for an individual to produce tangible things or a connected gag order, and electronic service providers directed to assist the government). The Supreme Court has statutory jurisdiction to review FISC opinions under certain circumstances. The Court may review on a Writ of Certiorari filed by the United States any decision of the FISCR affirming the denial of a government application to the FISC. Additionally, the FISCR certify any question of law . . . as to which instructions are desired, and the Supreme Court may then give binding instructions to the FISCR or require the FISCR send the complete record up and decide the entire matter itself. The Court may also review FISCR decisions on a third party challenges. Foreign Intelligence Information (FII) is information that relates to U.S. ability to protect against possible hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, sabotage or terrorism by a foreign power or agent, and clandestine intelligence activities by a foreign power or agent. FII includes information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to the national defense, national security, or conduct of foreign affairs of the United States. If the intended surveillance target is a U.S. person, the information must instead be necessary to protect against hostile acts, sabotage, or terrorism, or U.S. national defense, national security, or foreign affairs. Under FISA, the Justice Department reviews applications for counterintelligence warrants by agencies before submitting them to the FISC. The Attorney General must personally approve each final FISA application. The application must contain, among other things: a statement of reasons to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power; a certification from a high-ranking executive branch official stating that the information sought is deemed to beforeign intelligence information, and that the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; statements regarding all previous applications involving the target; detailed description of the nature of the information sought and of the type of communication or activities to be subject to the surveillance; the length of time surveillance is required; whether physical entry into a premises is necessary, and proposed procedures tominimizethe acquisition, use, and rete ntion of information concerning nonconsenting U.S. persons. For U.S. persons, the FISC judge must find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met: (1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which may involve a criminal law violation; (2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power under the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations; (3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or (4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways. When the FISC grants applications for surveillance it issues a primary order finding that all the FISA requirements were met. The FISC also issues a secondary order providing that upon request of the applicant, a specified third party must furnish the applicant forthwith with all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessar y to accomplish the search in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference. Assisting third parties, such as telephone and Internet service providers, are compensated for any assistance rendered, and can keep certain records under security procedures adopted by the government. Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was added as an amendment in 2008. It authorizesthe collection, use, and dissemination of electronic communications contentstored by U.S. internet service providers (such as Google, Facebook, and Microsoft) or traveling across the internets backbone (with the compelled assistance of U.S. telecom providers such as ATT and Verizon). It allows intelligence agencies to collect foreign intelligence from non-Americans located outside the United States. But under the surveillance authority set up under this section, many Americans also have their communications swept up by surveillance programs operated by the FBI and NSA. Unlike the four traditional FISA surveillance activities, the surveillance programs authorized under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 do not involve FISC oversight of individual surveillance orders. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence are allowed to jointly authorize the targetin g of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information without adhering to traditional FISA rules. Instead, the FISC reviews the targeting and minimization procedures adopted by the government and determines whether they comport with the statutory restrictions and the Fourth Amendment. The FISC also reviews the certification submitted by the government attesting that a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information, providing copies of the targeting and minimization procedures, and attesting that acquisition will comply with certain statutory limitations.The statutory limitations on acquisition are that it: (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States; (3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the Unit ed States; (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of